Jump to content

Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Bill Gates

Bill Gates an autistic genius? How about a socially akward nerd.

, 10 September 2005 (UTC)I don't understand why this article is not considered neutral. I checked on the Internet and included a great deal of information for and against the claim that Newton and Einstein may have been autistic. Isn't that what neutrality is about? Since I wrote the article I have been given evidence that Autistics can have a sense of humour. I followed the Scientific method and modified the article to include this evidence. I hope Wikipedians are now satisfied.

The argument against is filled with disputes ("this claim is disputed") and such (who disputes that claim? Just saying "this claim is disputed may not be neutral... saying "some people dispute this claim" is much more neutral... it might also help to point out who those "some people" are or give an example). If you're going to have disputes in one side you should consider having it in the other also (which really means that its probably best the way it is currently organized to have the disputes in the opposite section or someplace else etc.). Hope that helps :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

I should mention in general Newton could use a longer argument for, and the arguments in general could be lengthened a bit. Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:50, 13 September 2005 (UTC)

"This claim is his own opinion."

This is both redundant, since he's the only one we're citing, and defensive as if his opinion was automatically invalid.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)

Needs fixing up

I think the article still needs some work. I went through and cleaned up some typos, some awkward phrasing, etc., but this is not yet up to a high standard, I think. There are too many "weasel words" like "There is speculation that..." Who speculated? And when citing Frank Klein... well, who is Frank Klein and why should we care?

Barbara Shack 18:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)Who is Frank Klein? He runs this extensive website. Autism, Genius, and Greatness. Should we care? He's worked hard on his website. He is well informed. he understands the autistic community. I'm unsure of his objectivity. Please post a link to the reference. I don't know how to.
Barbara, I just added indents to your post above to clarify that this was your comment, not mine, since it was placed in the middle of my post and was sort of confusing. :) I didn't change anything else, though! I will post a link to the reference. It is not too hard -- How to edit a page includes information on various ways to link to refs, if I recall correctly. ManekiNeko | Talk 21:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Barbara Shack 18:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)Thanks for showing me how to edit. I've already done some new notes.
I noticed the new refs! Thanks for adding those! ManekiNeko | Talk 20:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have added references and cleaned up a bit. In reading the referenced articles I noticed that the text in this article seems way too close to the text in parts of the BBC and New Scientist articles, and I think that is also an issue that needs to be addressed, to avoid copyright violation. I would like feedback from other editors on this. ManekiNeko | Talk 22:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

If he is quoted in one of the references below, post a link to that reference. In general, I think it would be helpful to cite specific references for the various claims on the page, next to the claims themselves.

Additionally, I deleted the external link that claimed to show that autistics have a sense of humor -- because it seemed to be posted to promote the view that autistics have a sense of humor, rather than to back up the content of the page. (If it had been discussing whether autistics have a sense of humor, I would probably have left it alone -- but it is just a random funny page by an autistic, and as so, it's both a non sequitur and something that was placed on the page to serve a POV.) "Since I wrote the article I have been given evidence that Autistics can have a sense of humour. I followed the Scientific method and modified the article to include this evidence." I think this is part of the problem -- you are doing original research to prove a point. The page isn't here to prove that autistics have a sense of humor, therefore the arguments they don't are invalid, yada yada. The page is here to present the two sides.

Basically, though, I think the page needs to be rewritten to provide more solid citations, at the very least. ManekiNeko | Talk 00:35, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 13:34, 16 September 2005 (UTC)" Further, Glen Elliott believes that people with severe Asperger's syndrome do not have a good sense of humour as Einstein reputedly had. In any case Glen Elliott only claims that Einstein could not have had what he sees as 'severe Asperger's syndrome'. If this is true it does not preclude the possibility of Einstein having had different autistic traits or a different type of autism."The above is a quote from the last paragraph. The external site is there as evidence against Glen Elliot's Contention.

That is my point -- it is there to support a POV, but not as a reference for anything on the page, and its topic is not related to the topic of the page. It's just, as I said above, "a random funny page by an autistic, and as so, it's both a non sequitur and something that was placed on the page to serve a POV." It really is leaning toward original research IMHO. Also, one other thing... could you sign your posts at the end of the post instead of the beginning? I'm finding it a little confusing to read the way it is now. Thanks. ManekiNeko | Talk 19:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 15:56, 16 September 2005 (UTC)This article is more and more duplicating List of recognised people with autism spectrum disorders. Looks like the two articles should be merged.

A merge might be good. The title of this article bothers me, altho I can see that the speculation is sourced in some cases. Friday (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, I think the articles should be merged. The title of this one bothers me too. ManekiNeko | Talk 19:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
OK, I have added templates to the two pages in question so people will discuss a possible merge. I also removed the humor link again because I do still firmly believe that it is a POV link that isn't directly related to the subject of this page. I would like other editors to contribute their thoughts on this matter, please. Thanks! ManekiNeko | Talk 20:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
Yes, it's a POV link and close to original research too. i.e. what should be done in this case is linking to a site that argues why the POV humor site is funny, rather than simply assuming its funny. I hope that makes sense :\ (it's a bit confusing, I know - also, it should be ref/noted rather than an external link). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

And, of course I agree with the merge since I originally proposed a merge :). Also, I agree with everything ManekiNeko pointed out :) Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:27, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

Something needs to be done here. If the article is speculation, then it needs to be deleted. If it is not speculation then it needs to be renamed. But definitely one or the other. DJ Clayworth 20:29, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

The article is not speculative. It reports the speculation that others have done outside Wikipedia. Therefore, I do not believe the article needs to be renamed and the article is not original research. Q0 20:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

These are my comments made on the "List of recognised people with autism spectrum disorder page". I agree with the idea of merging the second list but not the first. I don't agree with the title of the article that it's being merged too. The term used "famous" is not neutral. This was a similiar point I made with getting this list renamed from notable people etc to recognised people. If it was called "recognised people in history who may have had autism" then yes, by all means merge it. Also using the term "autism" is only considering people who may have had autism. The term "autism spectrum disorder" covers both aspergers and autism. rjwd 09:47, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I agree, the title is not what it should be. But I am having trouble formulating a solid idea for how the two articles should either merge or link together at this point. I would really really like to see more feedback. ManekiNeko | Talk 19:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)

Merged Article

I have merged the article. Moved Blind Tom Wiggins to historical list even though he died in 1908, it was before the official classification of autism. And put the historical list in alphabetical order. Also made a few other changes. I'd like to hear people's feedback. rjwd 01:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

POV issue?

This paragraph is sort of bothering me:

'In any case Glen Elliott only claims that Einstein could not have had what he sees as "severe Asperger's syndrome". If this is true it does not preclude the possibility of Einstein having had different autistic traits or a different type of autism. Others also are unconvinced and believe the two scientists’ personality quirks could have been caused by their high intelligence.'

I see the "in any case... if it is true..." bits as sort of trying to build a case against Elliott, which of course is not what we are trying to do here; we should just be reporting what he said. I would like to hear feedback from others on this. (Also, "others also are unconvinced"... what others?)

If it seems like I worry about this stuff a lot, well, I write academic papers, so I am always worried about this in the real world, too. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 20:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)

Barbara Shack 13:49, 27 September 2005 (UTC)If any Wikipedians have time, here is a list of people suspected of having autistic traits or autism. It could be worth checking them out and writing them up. Famous people with autistic traits

That list has no value whatsoever. It's a list of names with no discussion or explanation and many of the suggested names are simply absurd. Taz, the Tasmanian Devil? Mark Twain? Bertrand Russell? Henry Thoreau? George Bernard Shaw? Tony Benn? Keith Olbermann? Al Gore? John Motson? All utter nonsense and most of the entries are equally preposterous. Ben-w 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
Man, I wish we had Taz on one of these lists. -Silence 00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
I agree the list shouldn't be included. It has next to no evidentiary value. I wish it actually cited sources for its info, or had some commentary.ManekiNeko | Talk 08:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

I believe that "The case that Albert Einstein and Newton were not autistic" is too POV orientated. The case that they were clearly sets out the evidence while also carrying some speculation, whereas the case that they weren't sets up the arguments then attempts to provide refutations. That section is supposed to be "Case for, case against", not "Case for, More case for in the form of rebuttal".

The whole bloody article is ridiculous beyond words. Ben-w 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Imprtant Ommission

Only a person's close friends or family, or therapists, are likely to be able to judge whether (s)he can be diagnosed with autism or Asperger's syndrome (AS). But it is illuminating to learn of people with similar characteristics to ourselves, especially when those people are successful or well-known.144.139.87.135

Anyone opposed to changing the title?

It should be Speculation of famous people who might be autistic. The "has autism" terminology, although common, is offensive considering there is a simple alternative. Neurodivergent 19:30, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

I agree with your suggested change. Q0 19:56, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
I strongly oppose not changing the title. The current one's awful. I also think your proposed title is only very slightly better; the "autistic/having autism" issue is one of the less important ones, more significant ones being:
  1. the use of the POV (and totally unnecessary, that something is only mentioned on Wikipedia if it's especially noteworthy is assumed, and should at most be mentioned in the article text, not the title!) term "famous"
  2. "speculation of people" is an amazingly awkward phrasing. It should be "people speculated to have been autistic", or similar.
  3. "people who might have autism" implies that everyone listed has to still be thought to have it, meaning that everyone listed here must be currently alive. "people who might have had autism" or "people who might have been autistic" would allow for people like Einstein and Newton, who aren't autistic zombies. Of course, then it wouldn't allow for current people—but should this page really include people who are modern, well-tested diagnoses as though they were the same as idle speculation regarding long-dead people hundreds of years after the fact?
  4. Why does this article even mention "speculation" when it lists people who are almost universally believed to have autism in addition to the historical post-mortem speculative diagnoses?
So, why not just "People speculated to have been autistic", or "Noteworthy people" or "Historical figures" or whatever? -Silence 21:47, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Well, I agree that the title is (and has been for a long time) problematic. I like your suggestions, with the exception that if you just have the article titled "People speculated..." that lots of people will start adding completely non-notable people to the list. ManekiNeko | Talk 22:17, 9 November 2005 (UTC)
Some ideas for new title:
"Notable people with autistic traits"
"Possible autism of famous people"
"Famous people claimed to have autism"
"Famous people thought to have autism"
"Famous people - possibly autistic"
Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 09:05, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
No. I disagree that we need "notable", "famous", "noteworthy", or any other POV term abstractly implying importance or relevance to this list. If someone is noteworthy enough to have a Wikipedia article, he's probably noteworthy enough to be mentioned, no? So it will be easy to spot the people who shouldn't be on the list, as they'll lack articles (though some noteworthy people don't have articles yet, of course). Furthermore this article is no more prone to inappropriate additions than any other article that doesn't mention "notable", but just implies it, as all Wikipedia articles and lists do. Just as many of those articles do, we should probably mention it at the top of the article, and certainly not mention it in the title. See: List of people believed to have epilepsy, List of Europeans, List of Eagle Scouts, List of people who were cremated, List of people who have disappeared, List of virgins, List of World War I veterans, List of Christians, List of deaf people, List of sculptors, List of suicides, List of people by name, List of Cubans, and hundreds more. -Silence 10:09, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
LOL. I guess you're right. Scratch famous/notable from my examples above.
Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 10:17, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Cool. Then, of your above examples: "people with autistic traits" sounds like an interesting and relatively neutral way to say it, though it might also make the article too broad (doesn't almost everyone have some trait or another associated with a form of autism? autism's a very broad spectrum disorder, you know), and could still be disputed on the basis of "X didn't have autistic traits!"; "possible autism of people" is just too weirdly-phrased; "people claimed to have autism" sort of works, but would probably offend due to the people listed here who have been diagnosed with autism today (and thus are no more "claimed" than any mental disorder diagnosed today is claimed) with its implications of uncertainty, so again, keeping the historical speculation and the modern diagnosis in the same page causes lots of problems—also, if we're going with "people claimed", why not go with something a bit more specific, like "people speculated" or "people purported"?; "people thought to have autism" is pretty much the same idea, with the same problems, but with the additional problem of making it sound like a general consensus of who is autistic rather than certain people's theories and claims, no good for Newton and so on, and also both this and the last one use "have autism" rather than "be autistic", which I thought was the problem this conversation originally proposed to fix; "people - possibly autistic" - hahaha. no. :D "possibly autistic people" is a bit tempting, though. But it would be difficult to clarify exactly how "possible" someone has to be to be listed; everyone is "possibly autistic" (and possibly not autistic, for that matter), after all; the difference is a matter of degrees. Also, the pluperfect problem plagues many of the above suggestions. But I'm willing to let that slide if we fix the other problems; most people probably won't be bothered by a little tense scrambling, not being grammar freaks. -Silence 11:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
How about one article for List of autistic people (subdivided by specific form of autism where possible, since saying "autistic" alone means very little), and another for People speculated to have been autistic with non-confirmed entries and the Einstein/Newton debate there? -Silence 11:33, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Actually, the list of people known to be autistic used to be separate from the speculation of Einstein and Newton. Since then, the two articles were merged. I think it was better before, when they were separated. Q0 11:55, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
I looked over http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_people for more ideas for a new title. One article about unconfirmed beliefs: List of people believed to have been affected by bipolar disorder.
Anyway, here are a few more suggestions:
People who met criteria for Aspergers
People who appeared autistic
People suspected of having Aspergers
People who probably had Aspergers
People who may have had Aspergers
Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 15:18, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
Those names are problematic too. "met criteria for Aspergers" and "appeared autistic" are very disputable, "suspected of having Aspergers" makes it sound like a crime, "probably" is POV too, and "may" is meaningless (everyone may have Asperger's). Also "Asperger's" isn't a type of autism, and I think that if we get any speculation that is for a different type of autism, we should accept that into the page too, to keep the scope broad and thus help the page expand into a full-length article.
I still say we need a name like "People speculated to have been autistic". "People believed to have been autistic" is acceptable, but not as good as "speculated", in my opinion, because it suggests wide belief (i.e. "most people think X had Asperger's"), rather than just noteworthy speculations. Does anyone have any problems with that name, for starters?
And since we agree that the list of autistic people should definitely be separated from the speculation of possibly autistic people, I suggest we make that separation immediately and then continue discussing where, exactly, to move this page, with the process uncomplicated greatly by clarifying exactly what the page's intent is. -Silence 16:10, 10 November 2005 (UTC)
"People speculated to have been autistic" is definitely an improvement on the current title.  :)
Becca77 ♥ | Talk | Email 19:57, 10 November 2005 (UTC)


Sorry to edit someone else's post, Becca, but there was a dangling tag that was causing the rest of the page to be very very tiny. Ben-w 05:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Evidence of Speculation

The nonsensical page that I previously deleted references to was restored. I have deleted references to it again because it has no value whatsoever. It is a four-year-old webpage on a free hosting service that provides no evidence, discussion, or details of the speculation. It just lists names, many of which are as out of place on it as they would be on a list of Liechtenstein tennis players.

It is not acceptable to list a series of names and say "people have speculated" that so-and-so is autistic. Nor is it acceptable to point to one dubious source such as that and claim that as evidence of speculation. To list a name, provide evidence that there has been serious speculation by someone whose opinion on the subject carries some weight. The examples given under the first heading do this. The discussion of Einstein, Newton, and Gates make it clear who is speculating and why. But by listing everyone in the world -- including the laughable examples of Bob Dylan, Stephen Fry, Mark Twain, and Michael Palin -- this page loses all semblance of credibility. Ben-w 23:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

If Dick Morris makes statements in his own autobiography, isn;t that an adequate citation? Please advise what is if that isn't?

Original research

I am concerned that original research is being done on this page. People should not add their own speculation. Even if people add arguments, I still think it is against Wikipedia's rule against original research. Entries should only be added if there is an external source where speculation takes place. Q0 07:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Tense

I noticed the tense of the article's title is in the past as opposed to the present: it is people speculated to have been autistic instead of people speculated to be autistic. Is there any reason for the title to be past tense instead of present tense? It seems like present tense should be the default tense. If there are no objections, I'd like to consider changing it. Q0 01:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Remove word 'speculative' in title

I think the title needs to be renamed to remove the word 'speculated' in the title. I think that word is confusing people into believing that the article itself is intended for speculation, when it is actually intended that it report speculation that has been done by autism professionals, journalists, the autistic community, etc., and the controversy that has been generated by this speculation. I would like to suggest a new title that has the word controversy in it instead of a varient of speculation; Perhaps a new title like Controversy about autism status in famous people. Q0 19:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

URL markup

I am having trouble including the following refernce in the article: http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/Danweb/pastissues/oldissues/2000/Asperger's Syndrome.htm . It needs a space in the URL, and when I tried replacing the space with a plus sign http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/Danweb/pastissues/oldissues/2000/Asperger's+Syndrome.htm it did not work, even though it seems to be convention to use the + instead of a space in URLs. When I try to include a space in the URL with wiki markup it doesn't come out right, see my tests in the Wikipedia:sandbox: [1]. Q0 10:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Try using http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/Danweb/pastissues/oldissues/2000/Asperger's%20Syndrome.htm. Shadowoftime 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
That worked. Thanks. Q0 23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Wittgenstein

Thanks for the Wittgenstein quote, user:PiCo.

Charles Upham

I was wondering if anyone shares my view that Charles Upham might have had Asperger's syndrome. I get this impression from General Sir Peter de la Billiere's book "Supreme Courage" on account of many mentioned things e.g. his staring glaze, mood swings, constantly being in his own little world etc.

John Lennon

I have a thought that John Lennon may have been autistic or AS. According to the book John Winston Lennon Volume 1, 1940-1966 by Ray Coleman, Lennon struggled at school and was obsessed with disabled people. He was also known for his eccentric behaviour patterns and had dyslexia.--Percussion

Your personal definition of autism is, then, meaninglessly broad enough to include every single person on the planet. Ben-w 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Oh, Ben... is your personnel deafinition of ecenttric, obbsessed and dylsexic broad ennough to includ evry single person on the planet? I thought that only a few of us are eccentrick obsessed and dyslexicc. At least, when you are ecenttrec, obbsessed and diclexic, thats the way it feels.... or doesn't it? O r maybe yore not ecksentric, obssesed and bislyxec enough to know that?

--Amandajm 08:17, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

David Blaine

I don't know much about David Blaine, but I was wondering if he has been speculated to be on the spectrum. Two things stand out: - his stunt involving an ice block (many people with A.S. including myself are extremely tolerant of extremes of temperature) and his monotonous-sounding voice (another giveaway trait).

The techniques that magicians use rely on precisely those empathic social skills which people with autism and A.S. lack. In general, if people would stop looking for one or two traits which may or may not correlate with autism and working from there, and ask instead whether the person displays the attributes which define it. Also, the idea that toleration of extremes of temperature may correlate with A.S. means nothing in this case as Blaine is a magician, doing a trick. Ben-w 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

AS, anybody?

Yeah, lots. To suggest that someone like Bob Dylan or John Lennon and so on, may have or had AS is not mere idle speculation..

I have read in newspapers, journals and so on, speculation as to the number of children who appear to have or have been diagnosed as having AS. The number appears to be increasing. the question is asked why? It is my opinion that the simple explanation is that there is mauch better reconition of the syndrome than there was fifty or even twenty years ago. I am related to one patently autistic adult who doctors refused to diagnose as autistic because he spoke. In fact, his facility for language was brilliant.

I now no that I am AS. It took me fifty years to discover that fact about myself. I am mildly AS, as may or may not be apparent from my communication. Yes, I do have a sense of humour.

Looking around, and back to my school days, I see a long line of friends who to me, now, are obviously Aspies. Never diagnosed, but always at odds. I would defend the case for Newton, and Einstein and many many many more of the world's brilliant people as being AS. In fact I would go so far as to say that genius and Asperger's Syndrome probably go together more often than not.

--Amandajm 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There's a complete lack of evidence-based scientific rigour to this observation. Ben-w 16:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
There's a complete lack of evidence period. I just don't buy it. A few years ago, speculation was rife that all those people had Tourette syndrome. Then it was ADHD. Whatever happened to "intelligent person that just has a few quirks"? Of course many autistics are passing for, or thought to be by others, intelligent people that just have a few quirks. But that doesn't mean all such people are autistic. --Bluejay Young 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

When was the conference?

It says "Furthermore, at a recent conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, evidence was presented that suggested Simon Baron-Cohen's previously held "theory of mind" hypothesis for autism was incorrect." The word "recent" is vague and should be replaced by the year or date it took place. (I've never believed in theory of mind anyhow; I'm autistic, and I learned how people think by watching TV as a kid.) --Bluejay Young 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Gordon Brown

Gordon Brown was semi-sarcastically suggested to be autisitc.[2][3]. Should this be included, and if so how? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez | (Complain here) 08:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Case against section

The entire second half of the "case against" section doesn't seem to have many references, and often makes claims that any autistic person could tell you face to face is utterly untrue, for example: As the concept of "mind-blindness" in autistics originates in the idea that they have no "theory of mind" -a means of perceiving the existence of others - this would also seem to invalidate an argument against Einstein's alleged autistic tendencies. Autistic mind blindness does not mean they "cannot percieve the existance of others", that's the same kind of theory that co-existed with Refrigerator mothers. (What autistics lack is a lack of insight into the motivations of others, they're often acutely aware of the existance and feelings of others)

Other examples try and ride over the top of the arguement, for example In any case, Glen Elliott only claims that Einstein could not have had what he sees as "severe Asperger's syndrome" - Assumes that removing severe Aspergers from the picture also removes any possibility he had mild Aspergers

Another prime example of poor and unsubstantiated logic is: Some researchers believe that one of the signals that a person is autistic is that they are "mind blind". That is, have difficulty inferring information about the intentions of others. In contrast, Einstein's views on politics were sensitive and sophisticated. - not only it is an unreferenced statement, but there's plenty of examples that show very sophisticated political discussion amongst Aspergers: ie. [4] [5]

I'd rather not go making major edits since I'm unregistered at the moment, but I figured that someone may want to think about adding citations to the case against if there really are any good ones.

88.16.51.235 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC) Ryuujin

What a stupid article

As if a single person here was qualified to make such judgements and even if they were its original research or at best repeating the speculations of other trivia fans. 210.239.48.141 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

And the rest...

And there are many other names that are missing from this list. Tesla was identified as autistic in this piece by a professor of psychology:

Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (2007) A conspicuous absence of scientific leadership: the illusory epidemic of autism. http://jepson.richmond.edu/academics/projects/ESSAYGernsbacher.pdf

Has Asperger is the subject of this paper:

Lyons V, Fitzgerald M (2007). Did Hans Asperger (1906–1980) have Asperger Syndrome? (letter). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Volume 37, number 10, November 2007. p. 2020-2021. http://www.springerlink.com/content/n00w0xl46510v681/?p=4cff7f36c3b2461b918cf2bf081aabcd&pi=18

Robert Boyle, William Rowan Hamilton, Daisy Bates and Samuel Beckett are in this book:

Walker, Antionette and Fitzgerald, Michael (2006) Unstoppable brilliance: Irish geniuses and Asperger’s syndrome. Liberties Press. 2006.

All of these famous people are in Prof Fitzgerald's latest book: Archimedes, Charles Babbage, Gregor Mendel, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Nikola Tesla, David Hilbert, H.G. Wells, John B. Watson, Bernard Montgomery (of Alamein), Charles de Gaulle, Alfred Kinsey, Norbert Wiener, Charles Lindbergh, Kurt Godel, Paul Erdos.

Fitzgerald, Michael, and O’Brien, Brendan (2007) Genius genes: how Asperger talents changed the world. Autism Asperger Publishing Company, 2007.

Paul Erdos is also in this paper:

Fitzgerald, Michael (1999) "Did "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers", Paul Erdos, Have Asperger syndrome?" Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 53.6 (1999): 465-466.

There are probably more ... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.77.207 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert

Come on, guys. Can we really cite a single blog entry as evidence of valid speculation? Especially when the blogger in question seems to have very little evidence to support their claim. Clearly she has some experience in the area, being autistic herself, but her opinion alone is hardly concrete enough to warrant Colbert's inclusion in this entry.

Correct, I removed it. Garion96 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Problems with the case against Einstein/Newton having AS

I just tried to fix this section, but it is still desperately in need of citations.

Furthermore, half of this putative case against involves repudiation of the case against. This leads to an appearance of extreme bias and non-NPOV. Those counter-arguments should not dominate this section.

I think the Case For section also needs cleanup, but at least it has citations.

I went into this article with an open mind and was disappointed by how unbalanced and non-NPOV it is. I improved it, but it still needs cleanup.

Aroundthewayboy 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Removed for Lack of Citations

I also removed the following unsourced entries on the list. Feel free to reintroduce them if and only if you can cite a reliable source.

Aroundthewayboy 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the list could do with a further culling - even the title makes me cringe, 'People speculated to have been autistic'? WP:BLP? WLU 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
Does anyone else see this list as wishful thinking on the part of autism researchers? It reeks of "hey, look, Famous Person X was ONE OF US so we're not that bad." Not to make light of autism, but seriously... it is possible to be utterly brilliant and yet still be socially clumsy without being autistic... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
That's exactly what it is. It's also part of the bill of goods sold to parents of the diagnosed kids. This article should be deleted. 216.125.196.2 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagree. The article is entirely valid: it is indeed notable that respected researchers have identified certain individuals as displaying AS traits. We are only reporting this. Malick78 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

Webmaster?

Since when is a webmaster a source for anything (other than possibly his field of being a webmaster)? I think this seriously needs to be removed. We could also add speculations by pie salesmen if we keep this. --DanielCD 16:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Everyone on the Internet thinks they are autistic. We should just make this page a redirect to LiveJournal. 86.142.240.58 11:21, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing

I've just started trying to source this article a bit, please forgive me if I leave some things in an ugly state while in the process. I did remove John Draper from the list, because I didn't feel that the WSJ article which it was cited to said explicitly that he might have a touch of autism, it just kind of hinted at it. (I also happen to know Mr. Draper, and while I wouldn't rule it out, my speculation doesn't satisfy BLP either).

Anyway, I'll be continuing with the sourcing, and occasionally deleting things which aren't reliably sourced, just yell if I do anything which seems unwarranted. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, there are now 28 cited statements in this article, using reasonably reliable sources (as reliable as speculation can be, anyhow). There is still a lot to be done in turning dozens of inline URLs into proper citations. I removed the article's unreferenced tag, but would recommend that anyone interested in maintaining this article start paring back some of the statements which are still tagged, there is a lot of questionable stuff left unsourced. I may yet whack a paragraph or two. Poindexter Propellerhead 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
Make that 40-some cites. And I did whack some stuff which had been tagged for months. We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Uncited text

I've removed the following uncited speculative text; perhaps some version of this can be sourced and added back:

  • However, some with AS would dispute the claim that they have usually have lack of sense of humour: there is commonly a good understanding of humour, especially in a setting where it can be adequately processed (such as when watching a TV show or movie) and use of humour in certain settings. People with AS expecially seem to appreicate the humour of characters who have social impairment themselves, such as Mr. Bean or David Brent in "The Office". Perhaps the studies examining humour in AS have examined the more severe end of the spectrum, exaggerating the significance of this trait.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

You people can't be bothered keeping this article up to date with the latest books and papers (by professors, academics etc), but you are too small-minded to cite a link to the one document on the internet that does attempt to keep on top of this subject. You Wikipedians really are pathetic. It's no wonder that people choose to do their own things and not contribute. There is a difference between being scholarly and having high standards, and being small-minded and mindlessly critical. I can't believe you people couldn't find any citations to documents about Wittgenstein or Lewis Carrol having AS. I think it's a case of not wanting to find information. How come one writer has been able to dig up 92 dead famous people, all of them undisputedly famous and many geniuses, who have been the subject of speculation or well-argued professional diagnosis of AS, each name supported with a reference to a published document, while this article has a piddly little list of thirty-odd famous names?

I think the undue emphasis on the writing of Professor Fitzgerald may be an attempt to depict this whole area of scholarship as the invention of one clinician, which it most certainly is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.199.35 (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be referring to the removal of a non-reliable blog, which erroneously claimed by the way that Mozart had Tourette syndrome, a point on which no reputable scholar agrees. If you have reliable sources that can be used to replace Fitzgerald, by all means suggest them, but we don't cite articles to blogs on Wiki. Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:EL. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

So if the list was published on a web site, that would make it more reliable? Could you please explain how the medium in which a document is published alters the quality of research or scholarship of the document? I think people like you are TOO LAZY to read and properly evaluate documents, so you just take a short-cut and judge the quality of a document according to prejudices about how the document is published. It's pretty laughable when one considers that this is the Wikipedia.

I might remind you that this severly limited and flawed article has a document with a noted mispelling of Einstein's name in it's title as a linked-to reference supporting the "sholarship" in this article. I personally wouldn't bother citing such rubbish in any references list.

Where did the blog make the claim that Mozart had Tourettes? Do you have literacy issues? I quote from the blog list

"...thought by some to have had Tourette syndrome, ..."

Oh, and by the way, the list did cite the bibliographic details of the published book in which it was argued that Mozart had Tourettes, "Simkin, Benjamin (2001) Medical and musical byways of Mozartiana. Fithian Press. 2001." The list doesn't even mention speculative claims that aren't backed up by some published document (which is a lot more than I can say for the Wikipedia). Can you cite a published book that argues the case that Mozart didn't have Tourettes? I hope you aren't going to argue that Mozart was just a regular normal guy. His eidetic memory and perfect pitch abilities appear to be generally accepted as true by those who study such people, and of course, these two rare (savant?) abilities have been found by academic researchers to be more common in autistic people. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.199.35 (talk) 07:08, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hitler's place here highly questionable

I read the book about autism in which Prof. Fitzgerald wrote about Hitler, and in that book, if my memory serves me well, the professor gave Hitler the diagnosis of "Autistic Psychopath", which was clearly intended by Fitzgerald to be an autistic variant of the present day notion of "psychopath" rather than the antiquated terminology for autistics as "psychopaths" as was used in the early part of the 20 th century. Therefore, in that book, Prof Fitzgerald gave Hitler a diagnosis that is not recognized by the medical commmunity and which I am sure you will not find in the DSM. Therefore, I don't think that diagnosis should be taken seriously by the Wikipedia. Fitzgerlad has given Hitler a different diagnosis than that which he generally gives to famous people, which is Asperger syndrome. At the very least there needs to be a lengthy note in the article explaining what the diagnosis given actually was, and that it is not a scientifically-recognized diagnosis. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.197.25 (talk) 16:39, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You left the *y* off autistic psychopathy, which is the spelling Fitzgerald used. Fitzgerald says that Hitler "meets all the criteria for autistic psychopathy as described by Hans Asperger" who employed the term psychopathy in its old-fashioned generic sense meaning any abnormal mental condition. Asperger and Fitzgerald were NOT using the term to refer to the disorder known in modern times as psychopathic/sociopathic personality. See here for more details of Hitler's probable AS traits, as researched by Fitzgerald.
The only questionable issue here is your conflation of Aspergers syndrome with the psychopathic personality when Fitzgerald is clearly writing about Asperger's syndrome. 124.179.131.177 (talk) 12:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Just for the sake of clarity here's the contemporary definition of psychopathy from the Penguin Dictionary of Psychology: 1. Any abnormal mental condition. 2. A forensic psychiatric term for a condition described under psychopathic personality disorder. 124.179.131.177 (talk) 13:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
It isn't me that is confused about the two different usages of the term "psychopath". I'm well aware that the psychopathy referred to by Asperger is nothing like the psychopathy that experts such as Hare have researched. I no longer have access to the specific book by Fitzgerald in which he discussed Hitler. The only way to settle this is by consulting this book. The Wikipedia needs to be based on what is written in printed books and journal papers, not questionable pieces that are only found on the internet. So, if YOU have access to the book in question, can you tell us what exactly were the two different conditions described in that table in the book near Fitzgerald's discussion of Hitler? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.77.207 (talk) 16:20, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Quote from the Hitler article: "Fitzgerald claims, therefore, that Adolf Hitler meets the criteria for autistic psychopathy described by Hans Asperger and was not schizophrenic." So, if this sentence is supposed to mean that Hitler was only diagnosed as having Asperger syndrome by Fitzgerald, then why oh why is the term Asperger syndrome not used, rather than the confusing and outdated term "autistic psychopathy"? This statement appears to be designed to confuse the reader. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.77.207 (talk) 16:28, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Read History of Asperger syndrome; the condition was called autistic psychopathy for many years. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:00, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

In the year 2004, when the book "Autism and Creativity:is there a link between autism in men and exceptional ability?", by Prof. M. Fitzgerald, in which he wrote about Hitler, was published, the term "autistic psychopathy" was most certainly NOT a term in current usage by any reputable autism or AS expert in reference to ordinary, plain Asperger syndrome. Professor Fitzgerald was proposing a new, specialized diagnostic category on the autistic spectrum in his use of this antiquated term in the year 2004. This idea was, and I believe still is, not accepted by the scientific community, therefore Fitzgerald's diagnosis of Hitler, specifically using this novel and unrecognized diagnosis, is at the very least controversial, and should not be read as a simple diagnosis of AS.

In your arguments you deliberately refuse to engage with the argument that I have explained. The fact that "autistic psychopathy" was a legitimate clinical term way back in the 1940s has absolutely no relevance to the point that I have argued here more than once. It has not been a legitimate term in current usage for many years, so it's usage by any notable autism expert should raise questions.

Professor Fitzgerald is simply referring to the historical phrasing 'Autistic Psychopathy' (quote) "...as described by Hans Asperger". F was not canvassing a brand new diagnostic entity. SandyGeogia has provided information on the use of this term above. see: History of Asperger syndrome. 121.223.117.85 (talk) 04:42, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

There's a world of carefully researched printed books in libraries and there's the world of Wikipedia and questionable web site fact sheets and articles. It's a pity there is so little proper interface between these two worlds. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.244.114 (talk) 08:08, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Please see talk page guidelines at WP:TALK and please sign your entries by adding four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after your entries. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


Arthur Schopenhauer: read his bio & you'll see why he should be on this page...

Hitler might not be Autistic for these reasons

1. many peole say that Hitler had Parkinsons disease, a disorder when the Brain does not produce enough Dopamine, In Autism this is the opposite, the Autistic Brain produces excess Dopamine, this is why people with severe autism have risperidome which is a Dopamine Blocker. I used to have risperidome because of my aspergers Syndrome, but i decided to stop taking it. 2. Hitler killed people with mental or Physical disorders during the Holocaust

La convivencia (talk) 13:21, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Officially Diagnosed?

Are there any famous people who have officially been diagnosed as autistic or is it all speculation? And are there actually any LIVING famous people with autism or have they all died out in this lifetime?

Well, autism and especially Asperger's were not that very commonly diagnosed until the 1990's, and most people who are famous today were already adults by that time. It would probably not benefit anybody to go in and get themselves diagnosed with AS ... e.g. if you were a multibillionaire whom people looked to for sound financial advice, and then they found out you had AS, they would be less likely to come to you for advice in the future. So it isn't in their best interest to get a diagnosis. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
Another way to put it might be to say that there are few or no famous people with autism living today who are famous for something other than being autistic. Soap Talk/Contributions 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Craig Nicholls, lead songwriter, lead singer and guitarist of the Australian rock band The Vines was formally dignosed with Asperger syndrome in 2004 by Australia-based Asperger syndrome expert Dr Tony Attwood. There are numberous reports of this in the Australian and rock music press. Nicholls more recently reportedly had problems with anxiety, leading to the cancellation of numerous concert appearances.

The long process of diagnosing Fields Medal winning mathematician and academic Richard Borcherds was described in the book "The Essential Difference" by Professor Simon Baron-Cohen. In this book Baron-Cohen, a world-class authority on AS and autism, refers more than once to Prof Borcherds as having AS, but Baron-Cohen also writes that Borcherds "... is not currently severe enough in his symptoms to warrant a diagnosis in adulthood ..." To meet the diagnostic criteria one must apparently be suffering impairment in daily life. But Baron-Cohen goes on to speculate that if Prof. Borcherds was placed in a less suitable environment "... in all likelihood his AS would cause him some degree of distress." So a world authority on AS appears to be telling us that a person can have AS but still not be eligible for a formal diagnosis of AS, because the official diagnostic criteria define AS as a condition that necessarily causes impairment and distress. Borcherds had AS and he also apparently didn't AS. For all I know, after the publication of this book, he could have become eligible to meet these stupid criteria. Does that settle the matter?

Nobel Prize winner Vernon L. Smith has been describing himself as having AS for a number of years now (as has his wife) and Prof. Smith had an autobiography published last year. I do not know if Smith was formally diagnosed. Haven't read the book yet.

On pages 7-8 of the biography "Courtney Love: the real story" Poppy Z. Brite wrote "In school, Courtney had always performed poorly despite her obvious level of intelligence. Most of the other children shied away from her, and she from them. She was diagnosed by one of her therapists as mildly autistic."

At least two different internet sources state that actress Darryl Hannah was given some type of autism diagnosis as a child, and in a recent feature article about Hannah published in the Weekend Australian Hannah is quoted as saying "They wanted to institutionalise me." In that article Hannah claimed she was given a battery of tests and she described why she gave a supposedly incorrect answer in some type of pictorial theory of mind test.

In a 2004 radio interview broadcast by NPR actor Dan Aykroyd claimed to have been diagnosed as a child with Asperger and Tourette syndromes.

Gary Numan has been openly refering to himself as a person with Asperger syndrome for a number of years, and numerous media records of this can be found in at least on TV interview, press and internet sources. Apparently his wife agrees with this label. I believe Numan was self-diagnosed.

Enough examples? One could also mention Bram Cohen of BitTorrent fame, and all of the stuff that has been attributed to Richard Stallman on the subject of Stallman's childhood and autism. Helen Dale/Darville/Demidenko claimed in a 2008 media interview that she could have AS, which is I believe the solution to a fascinating and conntroversial puzzle that many Australians were wondering about since 1996.

There are also plenty of famous people who have speculated in published media interviews that they have mild AS, might have AS, might have once had AS, etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.201.103 (talk) 13:29, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

According to this, Steven Spielberg has AS and has been diagnosed. Shouldn't we put that there? And another thing, Bill Gates' friends or anyone who has met him have said that he has AS whether he is diagnosed or not so we may be able to put that here, maybe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.61.180.182 (talk) 23:41, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

What's the point of this article?

Seriously though? I find it baffling that an article that even has the term "speculated" within it would ever be in an encyclopedia! Does it actually get any more unencylopaedic? If I were a proper Wiki editor instead of just a person who dips in and out, I'd be considering nominating this garbage for deletion. The main pillars for this reasoning are (a) it's speculation (b) many of the the speculations are based upon extremely insubstantial reasoning or evidence; and (c) if Wikipedians believe that there is worthy evidence suggesting autism in a historic person then this can be placed in context within that person's own Wiki article. It seems to me that having a page like this gives license to insubstantial claims so as to justify the pages' very existence. Roobens (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

It's already been through one round of deletion discussion before and survived. Not to say it won't happen again, but if you read that page you can see (in my opinion) some good reasons for letting it stay. Soap Talk/Contributions 16:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

This entire article is just worthless speculation and needs to be deleted. Surely people don't really believe this crap? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.9.168.162 (talk) 22:07, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Sometimes there should be articles about speculation, so long as the speculative nature of the material is clear. The fact that people are speculating about something is itself a fact. The important thing is not whether the speculation itself is true or false, but the fact that the speculation exists and is popular. People's feelings and opinions are real and verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 21:35, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I find this ridiculous. Encyclopedias are for facts, and the problem with this page full of speculation is not only that it is not factual, but that it can never be because we can't go back in time to meet and diagnose these people. Why not have a page on "World leaders speculated to be lizardmen" or "Famous left-handers suspected to be ambidextrous"? "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." It says that beneath this edit pane, and it has been said above by Aebarschall. I understand that it is verifiable that people have speculated on these things, it also might be verifiable that my grandmother thinks that she is Joan of Arc. While it would be notable if she was indeed the martyr, and it would be notable if these historical figures were proven to be autistic, it is not notable (though it is perhaps factual) that someone thought that they might be. --142.179.3.236 (talk) 09:06, 22 December 2009 (UTC) THEZEUS18

What are the objections to Martin Bryant being included here?

There was disagreement between Dr Sale and Professor Mullen in their findings as to whether Bryant is on the Autistic Spectrum or not. The citation that I included clearly showed this.[6]

How was my citation unreliable? 114.76.80.160 (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

See WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, and WP:BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Title

The title seems a bit odd: "speculated to have been" is an awkward construction, to say the very least. Rumored or supposed might be an improvement on speculated, which can only be an intransitive verb, although the former sounds vaguely unencyclopedic and the latter introduces a new problem of double meaning. How about conjectured? Conjecture v. (tr.): form an opinion or supposition about on the basis of incomplete information Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps a better title is "People proposed to have been autistic". Proposed is more often used in the scientific literature than speculated. Speculated is too suggestive of an unsubstantiated claim. --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, that's better. Should we give it a little while or be quick and bold? Rivertorch (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
Its not just the title that needs changing, all throughout the article Speculated should be changed to Proposed. Speculate is common in everyday speech but its not used in scientific literature. Leave the Title as is for a few days, if no one objects it should be changed. --Diamonddavej (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Autistic Spectrum Disorders

Autism is a spectrum of disorders including people with few if any autistic features to people who are profoundly handicapped. It follows that everyone *can* be considered to be on this spectrum, even if they have negative values for autistic features. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

To be considered on the spectrum, you'd probably have to be autistic enough to be diagnosed. Doctors probably won't diagnose someone as "a little bit autistic". You wouldn't diagnose someone as antisocial for the one fist fight they've ever been in or someone as OCD (Obsessive-compulsive spectrum) or OCPD because they tie their shoes a certain way. Also, "Spectrum disorder in psychiatry is a term used to describe a mental disorder when there is thought to be "not a unitary disorder but rather a syndrome composed of subgroups" that can range from relatively "severe" to relatively "mild and nonclinical deficits".MichaelExe (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

A Criticism Section

would be great. I haven't found anything, unfortunately. MichaelExe (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Worthless

What a worthless article. It is just a list (already crap) of speculation.

You may as well put everyone remotely famous here, because if no one has *speculated* that they are autistic yet, just give tpeople time.

Sure every famous thinker is homosexual and autistic! Ekwos (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

I take it you dislike the article, then. Do you have any constructive criticism? Rivertorch (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
Yeah. Delete it. Ekwos (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)
Can someone explain how this article doesn't violate WP:SPECULATION? I took a look at the discussion for the last nomination for deletion and there wasn't any arguments for why this article should exist. Alpha9beta7 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Error of meaning in use of word 'diagnoses' in second sentence.

The second sentence in this article uses the word 'diagnoses' incorrectly twice:

"several autism researchers speculate that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart had autism and other diagnoses"

and:

"other researchers say there is not sufficient evidence to draw conclusions that he had any diagnoses"

To diagnose an illness or condition is the act of looking at symptoms and drawing a conclusion as to the classification and nature of the underlying condition. Therefore one does not have 'diagnoses', one has an illness or condition. The diagnoses are assigned by others in classifying the condition.

These sentences should ideally be corrected to use the proper words for the intended meaning. I suggest something like:

"several autism researchers speculate that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart had autism or another similar condition"

"other researchers say there is insufficient evidence to support a firm diagnosis of any such conditions"

Kevoreilly (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Asperger and humor

Elliott added that Einstein had a good sense of humor, a trait that is believed by some to be uncommon in people with severe Asperger syndrome

It is absolutely not true that humor is uncommon in Asperger's. From Heather Kuzniac to Clay Marzo, to Hannah, to myself and other Aspies, There are plenty of Aspies who do have humor, and laugh, and I've provided these links.

Furthermore DSM-IV does not mention impaired humor in its diagnostic criteria.

Either keep the references or delete the sentence as factually untrue. Is Elliot an ASD expert? Has he personally met those on the Spectrum? If not why even quote him?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140 (talk • contribs) 21:09, January 17, 2010 (UTC)

A discussion of whether humor is or isn't part of AS doesn't belong in this article; I've reverted all the recent changes, as they were poorly sourced anyway. See WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Retrospective_diagnoses_of_autism/Archive_1&oldid=1087107106"